211–220 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure your concerns have been addressed. Is it reasonable to 'lose confidence' because you haven't read the research?
pray tell, enumerate my concerns and show me how they've been addressed. Is it reasonable to assume they've been addressed just 'because scientists'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of this is answered in the IPCC reports, which have readable, short summaries: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353
I searched on the words "vapor" and "vapour" and found nothing. I also search on the word "water" and found nothing relevant to my question.
The chart at http://d1vn86fw4xmcz1.cloudfront.net/content/royptb/363/1501... (put together by The Royal Society) shows that most deforestation in Eastern Canada occurred over 400 years ago. This one http://mongabay-images.s3.amazonaws.com/12/1203all-time-defo... shows a shift starting about 300 years ago from temperate forest removal to tropical forest removal. Together, they start to paint a picture of massive defor…
I am not negating the global warming issue here, but what I see is just a correlation of two time series, much like the correlation between "US Spending on science, space and technology" and "Suicides by hanging, strangulation or suffocation" [1] [1] http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
What is the orbital wobble measuring? What is the volcano line measuring? Is that decreased forests or decreased land use? Should be be using more aerosols? Is that meant to be suns temperature or sun activity, or sun colour?
I realise that the actual data is from reliable carefully measured models but it makes this illustration so pointless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're correct that the article failed to point out that the increase in CO2 was unambiguously man made. Now, is the temperature increase caused by the increase in CO2 - likely so since the correlation is so close. Have they exhaustively excluded other possible causes -- maybe, maybe not...?
Why does everyone ignore the UAH and RSS troposphere data? It's the best data (by far the most accurate) we have on atmospheric temperature, and it shows no warming since 1996. http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html I have a simple R script to find the trend if you want to see it yourself.
The wiki article suggests that earlier discrepancies between tropospheric and ground measurements have been resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_data...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implicit in this remark is the idea that all humans share roughly the same interests and concerns. As difficult conditions exacerbate conflicts the weight of interests is measured first in capital and then in violent prowess. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc2016e2-d320-11e4-9b0a-00144feab7...
Sorry, I can't click through to that article -- when I dismiss the pop-up, the tantalizing "Climate Shock" headline disappears. I do say that all humans require energy to survive, and more efficient forms of energy require capital in the hands of innovators. I'll be happy to read the article if you can give me a link that functions better for me.
"There will still be ocean acidification, smog, ozone depletion and so on and once we set on geoengineering our planet, we’ll likely get hooked and never turn back. In many ways, geoengineering is even more uncertain in its consequences than climate change itself. Definitely far from being a solution, and even the foremost experts on geoengineering agree that it shouldn’t be done – only in extreme conditions, like when there isn’t any other choice." http://www.zmescience.com/other/reviews/book-review-climate-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool visualization. I agree, but I have to say their imagination on what other things might be causing warming is not very robust. For just one example, there are at least two major effects of burning: 1. Release of chemicals into the atmosphere (ex: carbon dioxide) 2. Directly heating the atmosphere There are literally billions of air conditioners, heaters, cars, factories, etc that all generate heat. The effect of…
The primary yearly energy consumption is about 155,000 TWh and the volume of the ocean is around 1.33e9 km^3, so back of the envelop, the heat dissipated by energy consumption yearly is enough to raise the temperature of the ocean by 0.0001 C. Doesn't seem very substantial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He does also maintain one of the satellite records, which does show global warming over the period 1960-2000 (not so much the last 10 years because of the global warming hiatus).
And other records do not show such a hiatus ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-i... ).